At ATD 2019: Two Views of the Human Factor at Work

Going from session to session at ATD (see more conference posts on the PM College blog) I had an object lesson in the dynamic my editor, Jeannette Cabanis-Brewin, wrote about on this blog just a couple weeks ago in "Tra-La, It's May; Stay Positive, People!"

She wrote about using the technique of Appreciative Inquiry to create change in a positive way by focusing on what works and communicating about it, instead of indulging in negativity and blame. I think the leader of my first workshop session, Building Better Ideas: The Value of Constructive Debate (Kim Barnes, Barnes & Conti Associates) would agree with her. Barnes discussed the need to create an environment that supports open exchange and collaboration of ideas leading to fuller participation, greater innovation, and better decisions, similar to the way good project managers do a project kickoff. Barnes acknowledged that meetings are not always (sadly) collaborative ... and then there is “meeting after the meeting” where some team members are left out.

Part of the solution, she suggested was just to admit that we aren't great at this stuff. Our tendency is to resist stress, conflict and unfamiliarity … hampering ideas. And there's a process that we have to go through at the beginning of any project. As Barnes noted:

• Few ideas are great to start
• Most people don’t have the required skills
• Internal politics impact ideas.

Her solution: Constructive Debate is rational (not emotional), fact-based (versus opinion), interactive (versus sequential) and focused on identifying / testing / developing / improving ideas to prepare for decision making. In a Constructive Debate:

• No single answer is correct / ideal
• Critical thinking is possible if fact and logic apply
• Ideas need to relate to strategic goals
• Avoid political pressure or groupthink

The four techniques she offered were:

• Engage Others –  using a round robin to gather ideas (with the caveat that it's okay to pass); ask for feedback; only say "thank you" rather than arguing for or defending ideas, and engage in active listening to make sure others feel heard and you verify that you understand.
• Explore Views –  Go deeper! Be open to feedback; anticipate consequences if successful and if not successful (to risk managers this sounds mighty familiar)
• Challenge Positions – identify assumptions (not everyone has the same), clarify rational, argue a point, understand why there is disagreement, offer another way of looking at things
• Stick to the Process / Flow:  Frame up (facts) > Debate / Develop Ideas / Express / Challenge > Decide

The criteria for identifying ideas was quite reminiscent of some of the portolio selection and risk identification processes I've seen:

• Ideas need to be explored fully
• Challenge assumptions
• Anyone can express ideas
• Pull from a broad range of opinions
• Receive ideas non-defensively
• Explore fully before making decisions.

Bottom Line: constructive debate leads to collaboration and value-creating innovations / ideas. One thing that can throw a wrench in this works is, of course, executives who are not supportive or involved.Leaders do not always realize their impact on ideas and unless they consciously work to let new thinking emerge, their personality or power may dominate the outcome.

Which brings me to the second workshop, a 180-degree turn from the aspirational note struck by Constructive Debate.

In "Unwritten Rules of Managing Up:  Surviving the 'Difficult Boss' and Thriving," Dana Brownlee, a project manager who worked for IBM and used her project management background to deal with some difficult situations, presented a study she did of 1172 participants … in which only two said they never encountered someone who was difficult in their career (and I think those two were being coy!) Her advice applies not only to bosses but equally to difficult clients, vendors, stakeholders (!!!), etc. She identified six difficult personality types and ways to "manage up" with them:

• The Clueless Chameleon is not sure what they want but will hold you responsible. Use a Project Charter approach to spell things out and gain formal agreement.
• The MIA (missing in action) boss is just too busy. You need to document critical success factors from previous projects and use a formal schedule to highlight dates/times/needs.
• The Meddlesome Micromanager is just the opposite. S/he helicopters over your project. Figure out why (is it me? or is it everyone?). Clarify roles and responsibilities – yours and the managers and document them. Get formal agreement on the schedule ... and set widely spaced review check-ins.
• The Wishful Thinker wants everything. Clarify wants versus needs (or in agile terms, put in a backlog). Use triple constraints to make choices. Document risk analysis / strategic questions and develop a worst-case scenario. Sometimes seeing the required trade-offs in black and white with curb his/her enthusiasm.
• The Tornado is overbearing in nature and whirls in to "helpito get it done." Enlist their help with specific tasks. When using the round robin technique, make sure they go last so they don't blow everyone else away. Compliment ideas, document what they say ... and pivot to the next topic.
• The Naked Emperor loves their own ideas ... too much. Having set processes for project selection and idea generation will help (see Constructive Debate, above). Then use a stakeholder-based 360-degree feedback type process to evaluate ideas.

Managing up always requires delicacy and tact; all the more when dealing with people we find difficult. Maybe I'm too negative (or just have too much experience!) but I enjoyed this presentation and recognized some of these characters from organizations and projects I've been involved with. Probably a blend of aspirational Appreciative Inquiry, Constructive Debate with a health dose of battle-hardened realism is the winning recipe for projects (and organizations) able to thrive.